BY RONNIE GARDSTEIN
Correspondent
Two impassioned experts discussed “Separation of Church and State: How Separate Are They?” in a public forum held on Oct. 14 at Monmouth Beach Borough Hall.
The program was sponsored by the Monmouth County Friends of the American Civil Liberties Union-New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), whose stated mission is to support, protect and defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States by promoting an understanding of the meaning of civil liberties.
Approximately 50 attendees of the forum sought answers to questions such as whether the U.S. Department of Education may lawfully donate discretionary funds to parochial schools, whether the Constitution mandates identical treatment of all religious organizations, whether “faith-based initiatives” are constitutional, and why press coverage is not more probing in dealing with the increasingly religious tone of political discourse.
J.C. Salyer, former staff attorney of the ACLU-NJ, addressed the legal history of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Eleanor Novek, associate professor, department of communications at Monmouth University, spoke about the media’s imperfect coverage of the separation of church and state.
Salyer conducted constitutional litigation for the ACLU-NJ from 1999 to 2003, has taught First Amendment law at Rutgers Law School, Newark, and is currently in the cultural anthropology Ph.D. program at the City University of New York Graduate Center
The opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” According to Salyer, those sixteen words have given rise to a complex body of constitutional cases.
“The U.S. Constitution requires the protection of the rights of political and religious minorities without subjecting religious beliefs to government intervention,” Salyer explained. A “wall of separation” must be maintained between government and religion. What violates that separation is open to great controversy, he noted.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not make broad pronouncements about the meaning of the Constitution. Rather, noted Salyer, the court decides specific cases and controversies. The Supreme Court has not defined what is a religion. Rather, it uses a “sincerely held belief” test, he explained.
The establishment of religion clause recently has given rise to legal cases involving school prayer and public funding of religious institutions, while the free exercise clause has spurred cases involving nativity scenes, menorahs, and other religious and holiday symbols on public property.
In cases involving holiday displays of religious symbols on public land, the high court has approved displays where it found a secular intent or purpose, a primary effect that was not to endorse a religion, and circumstances that did not foster excessive entanglement of the government in religion, according to Salyer.
The court recently agreed to review two lower-court decisions involving displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and thus will be addressing another politically sensitive religious issue, he said.
Public funding of discussions of comparative religions is constitutionally acceptable as long as it does not entail an endorsement of a particular religion. Salyer explained. In response to a question, Salyer explained that “busing students to religious schools has been viewed as constitutionally permissible as it is a purely secular service that does not cause entanglement of government in religious matters.”
Novek focused her remarks on the media’s imperfect coverage of events or policies that raise separation of church and state issues. A former newspaper reporter and editor, Novek teaches undergraduate courses in journalism at Monmouth University, where she also serves as director of the graduate program in corporate and public communication.
Currently, faith and patriotism have become linked, in her view.
“Faith-based policies are on the rise in the United States,” she said, relating her distress that in the recent presidential debates, each candidate spoke of his personal religious views. She believes that a candidate for public office “should be moral and should keep his personal relationship with his creator to himself.”
The use of religious terms such as “jihad” and “crusades” has political implications, said Novek. Sweeping roundups of Muslim men following 9/11 resulted from a lack of understanding of differences within the religion, she said.
“We are in an era of fundamentalist thinking, in the United States, the Middle East and elsewhere,” she said, adding that she finds the situation dangerous.
The press is frightened of retribution or of being unpatriotic, and thus does not ask the tough questions, asserted Novek.
“It is important in a democracy for the press to represent citizens, ask hard questions and keep government honest. Media must be watchdogs that bark in the night and awaken people.”
Novek does not approve of partisan news coverage.
“There are multiple sides to every issue, and thus the media must continue its historically apolitical role,” Novek said.
With a few exceptions, Novek said she believes that the media supports the principle of separation of church and state. However, in the post-9/11 climate of fear, with so much focus on the acts of a small number of Islamist terror groups, she said she wonders whether the press recognizes the steady advance of evangelical Christian philosophy into public policy as the significant threat to liberty that it is. In covering the politics of the Bush administration, she feels that, “the media need to pay more attention to unconstitutional ways that religious tenets are being used in policy-making.”
The non-partisan forum was the first of a series of programs the Monmouth County Friends of the ACLU-NJ plans to present on the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Forum co-sponsors include the Greater Red Bank Area League of Women Voters, the Northern Monmouth County Branch of the American Association of University Women; the Shrewsbury Monthly Meeting, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Monmouth County. The steering committee for the series also includes members from Brookdale Community College and the public.
Monmouth County Friends of ACLU-NJ was formed in February 2003 by Monmouth County residents Jacqueline Royce and Norma Rosenbloom. According to Ms. Royce, the two gathered a group of Monmouth County citizens who were increasingly concerned that, in the wake of 9/11 and the passage of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, civil liberties were slowly eroding. Ms. Royce was moved to action by remarks made by United States Attorney General John Ashcroft at the time of passage of the Patriot Act.
Although the founders are individual members of ACLU-NJ, the Monmouth County Friends is a separate, independent organization, not a chapter of the ACLU.
In September 2003, a few founding members of the group put together a panel discussion on “Balancing Security and Civil Liberties”, which considered the effect of the Patriot Act on the right to privacy. In May of 2004, a second panel took on the question, “What is Patriotism?”
More information about the Monmouth County Friends of the American Civil Liberties Union and its future events is available on its Web site, www.monmouthfriendsofaclu.org.
County Friends is a separate, independent organization, not a chapter of the ACLU.
In September 2003, a few founding members of the group put together a panel discussion on “Balancing Security and Civil Liberties”, which considered the effect of the Patriot Act on the right to privacy. In May of 2004, a second panel took on the question, “What is Patriotism?”
More information about the Monmouth County Friends of the American Civil Liberties Union and its future events is available on its Web site, www.monmouthfriendsofaclu.org.